Comments on If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:30:44 -0700

Thanks for the compliment.

Yeah I've got far more than my share of great World Series memories but you're right, the 2001 postseason was more emotional than most. Not so much because the Yanks lost but that I very much associate that postseason with 9/11. Really, the baseball loss didn't sting nearly as much as it might have if they hadn't won 4 of the previous 5 World Series. And maybe if I hadn't been somewhat numbed by the attack. Looking back on it now, it is also sad in retrospect because 2001 was the end of Yankees' ear of glorious World Series dominance.

But in real time 2003 actually hurt more, as I was less impressed with the '03 Marlins than the '01 DBacks and teh yanks had won over 100 games in 03. And being 3 years removed from their last championship, the urgency to win seemed much greater.

Scott Martin commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

Scott Martin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:54:05 -0700

I assume that's your site. Nice job in so little time. Feel free to alert me to any future posts you have that might be of interest to me.

I'm a DBacks fan, and I have a picture hanging on my office wall of the 9/11 memorial at the formerly Bank One Ballpark prior to game one of the 2001 World Series. I'm sure you have some fond memories of that series, as well.

But probably not as many as me.

;)

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:38:14 -0700

"I don't believe in any way that Obama's opposition to the surge comes from anything other than a desire to counter an unpopular Bush initiative, and a desire to increase his support with the general anti-war movement."

Well, (and again, Scott, with all due respect) he supported escalating the war in Afghanistan in 2006 by redeploying from Iraq - more than a year before the surge had even been proposed. The surge directly undermined his Afghanistan position. It's counterintuitive and I think somewhat disingenuous to declare that any other reason is necessary for him to have opposed the surge. He opposed the surge because he's been proposing for over a year to redeploy to Afghanistan from Iraq. The surge sent more troops TO Iraq, further hindering any chance to get more troops into Afghanistan.

Obviously you disagree with his priority that Afghanistan is the more important theater, and you'll make whatever assessments you make regarding the wisdom of that position. But these insistances of yours that his motives are driven solely by obstructionism are very much unfounded and in fact difficult to accept given the very clear facts to the contrary.

Further, left and right media alike have noted a developing convergence of Obama's and Bush's positions with regard to Iraq policy. That might leave McCain in a bit of a spot if improving conditions allow Bush to continue to move toward Obama's and Al-Maliki's preference for a phased drawdown. It will be very hard for McCain to shift smoothly from his current attack strategy that plays up the differences between his Iraq policy and Obama's.

Meanwhile, Obama looks like he's already taken that step:
http://youraveragejoe.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/on-converging-foreign-policies/

Scott Martin commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

Scott Martin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:45:21 -0700

"With all due respect, I suggest you consider altering your sources for news about Barack Obama and his policies and positions if you're more interested in the truth than the latest partisan talking points."

I attended Obama's speech in Tempe at ASU and he never once mentioned Afghanistan. He portrayed himself as the anti-war candidate, and many of his followers are extremely anti-war of any kind.

So while he has quietly maintained support for the war in Afghanistan, he has only recently added this to speeches aimed at larger audiences. I read two of the ones you posted quickly, and while I'm pleases to see that he has supported the Afghanistan effort, his remarks about the ability to win in Iraq and his refusal to view Iraq as a vital forum in the war on terror are shockingly naive and have been proven wholly wrong.

I don't believe in any way that Obama's opposition to the surge comes from anything other than a desire to counter an unpopular Bush initiative, and a desire to increase his support with the general anti-war movement.

So if, as I believe, he was right on one and wrong on the other, I'd rather elect the guy who was right on both.

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:28:11 -0700

"Glad to see you can admit that. If only Obama could."

Oh he very much has. Right in the interview you placed in this post, in fact. Check it at about 2:39 in. Unfortunately, as you know, CBS did some very questionable editing with Couric's interviews of McCain and Obama and the version that aired (which is what you've placed here) doesn't depict either one very accurately.

Here's a transcript of the actual interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml

And here's the relevent portion:

...........
Couric: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

Obama: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
..........

Regarding the rest of your comment, Based on this and other misconceptions you espouse, you don't have a very accurate view of Obama. For example, there are some Bush policies he supports, such as his plan to expand Bush's mostly forgotten and ignored Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. But more significantly, his support for the war in Afghanistan, also Bush policy, obviously, has been adamant and unwavering. He has never been an anti-war candidate.

Here's an Obama speech from Aug 07 in support of the Afghanistan War:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Here's a speech from Nov 2006 in which he proposes redeploying troops to Afghanistan.
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php

His Afghanistan position has been consistant for at least that long, probably since we invaded Iraq in 2003.

With all due respect, I suggest you consider altering your sources for news about Barack Obama and his policies and positions if you're more interested in the truth than the latest partisan talking points.

Scott Martin commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

Scott Martin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:13:03 -0700

Glad to see you can admit that. If only Obama could.

And you are correct; the issue is one of priorities. Obama's priority being to bolster his chances at becoming the presidential nominee by opposing any policy that President Bush supported. With Obama's priority also being to entrench himself as THE anti-war candidate, which he is now reneging on in his sudden push to increase troops in Afghanistan.

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:42:33 -0700

"“If we think that Sadr acted in a vacuum, I think we're kidding ourselves,” Morrell said. “There clearly was political and military pressure which caused him to make a decision to have his troops stand down."

This is undoubtedly ture. However the extra troop deployment that we refer to as the surge was not a part of that pressure.

That said, I don't disagree that the Iraq War effort benefitted from the surge - nor does Obama. The issue is one of priorities.

Scott Martin commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

Scott Martin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:52:33 -0700

Pentagon Report: "Surge Successful by Any Measure"

There were, of course, other factors at work in the security improvement, Morrell said, but the surge and the change in U.S. counterinsurgency strategy made all else possible. The “Anbar Awakening” that allied formerly insurgent Sunni Muslims with the coalition and influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s cease-fire were other factors, he said, but he noted they didn’t happen independently of other events.

“If we think that Sadr acted in a vacuum, I think we're kidding ourselves,” Morrell said. “There clearly was political and military pressure which caused him to make a decision to have his troops stand down.

“But we benefitted from it, no doubt,” he continued. “There's no question that the awakening in Anbar, the cease-fire by Sadr, simultaneous to the surge, has helped the overall security situation in Iraq.”

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:14:13 -0700

That's a reasonable opinion which you and John McCain share and which Obama and I disagree with - within the context of it occurring in lieu of support for more pressing and important matters in the War on Terrorism. What I find most telling on the issue as it pertains to the coming election is that only one of these candidates was capable this week of supporting his position on the matter without exposing himself as disturbingly unaware of the chronology of events that occurred in Iraq and therefore also unaware of the primary reason for the downturn of violence in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq.

Scott Martin commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

Scott Martin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:42 -0700

And he's exactly wrong when he insists that the surge was a bad idea.

joe commented on 'If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...'

joe — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:38:41 -0700

What was fascinating was that CBS edited out McCain's actual answer to Couric's question about the Sunni Awakening being responsible for much of the recession in violence in Iraq. McCain's actual response (not the one that CBS edited in) was a blatent revision of the chronology of events in Iraq, claiming that the surge took place PRIOR TO the Sunni Awakening.

When asked yesterday about this bald-faced lie (or shocking ignorance of recent events in the Iraq War - you decide for yourself) his response was that when he refers to the surge, he's talking about events that occurred months before President Bush ever announced the surge. Meanwhile, Obama is exactly right that that the violence started to quell before the extra troops from the surge strategy arrived in Iraq.